Is evolution even a theory?

[SelfSim]

.. this electrical regulation did not happen itself, as no self regulation, self harnessing or self generating ever happens in electricity unless designed.

we are organic machines, not mutants.

I have no problem being referred to as an 'organic machine' (not sure about bein' called a mutant tho'?)

However, many electrical or, more specifically, electromagnetic effects happen naturally, without any designer.
Take bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation. Both are emitted naturally in space, when charged moving particles encounter magnetic fields causing them to accelerate. No designer is present.

Both can also be produced artificially in specific types of particle accelerators, designed by humans.

The the emission of synchrotron and bremsstrahlung radiation, is therefore evidenced as not necessarily implying a designer.

 

[Panthers]

Oh no, the heart is failing!
Surely you can save him doctor!
Yes, nurse. I can. Pass me... the reproductive part! And please, don't call me Shirley.

i am glad you have finally come to your senses
no pun intended.

 

[Panthers]

I have no problem being referred to as an 'organic machine' (not sure about bein' called a mutant tho'?)

However, many electrical or, more specifically, electromagnetic effects happen naturally, without any designer.
Take bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation. Both are emitted naturally in space, when charged moving particles encounter magnetic fields causing them to accelerate. No designer is present.

Both can also be produced artificially in specific types of particle accelerators, designed by humans.

The the emission of synchrotron and bremsstrahlung radiation, is therefore evidenced as not necessarily implying a designer.

radiation is not a device, it is an effect.
nice try, keep going

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

we mutate down, not up.
hence there is only DEvolution.

Wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

without a reproductive part the heart would ultimately fail.

Do you mean if a person had their reproductive organs removed? Well, yes, they would. Blood loss would ensue pretty quickly and the person would eventually die because the heart would stop.

 

[Panthers]

Wrong.

negative;
Mutations are 99.9% not beneficial,
is why cancer centers exists and not beneficial mutation centers.

 

[Panthers]

Do you mean if a person had their reproductive organs removed? Well, yes, they would. Blood loss would ensue pretty quickly and the person would eventually die because the heart would stop.

you are reading out of context.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

negative;
Mutations are 99.9% not beneficial,
is why cancer centers exists and not beneficial mutation centers.

No, they either beneficial (the ability to break down lactose in dairy), harmful or neutral (I remembered the word!).

I'd love to know where you get your 99.9% number from because it sounds like a load of bull.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you are reading out of context.

Is English your first language because I read the context and I couldn't make any sense of what you wrote.
"without a reproductive part the heart would ultimately fail." is not a sensical sentence in English.

 

[Panthers]

No, they either beneficial (the ability to break down lactose in dairy), harmful or just nothing.

I'd love to know where you get your 99.9% number from because it sounds like a load of bull.

easy, compare beneficial cancers to none beneficial cancers.

Is English your first language because I read the context and I couldn't make any sense of what you wrote.
"without a reproductive part the heart would ultimately fail." is not a sensical sentence in English.

seems like you can work on your english as well.

the context was regarding the heart and brain where one poser said the heart can live without the brain.
Sure it can, but not for long and not generational.

scifi experiments do not dictate truth, they dictate experimentation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

easy




seems like you can work on your english as well.

the context was regarding the heart and brain where one poser said the heart can live without the brain.
Sure it can, but not for long and not generational.

scifi experiments do not dictate truth, they dictate experimentation.

You're being rude, I was trying to understand better since you have no attempt at using punctuation, actual grammar or even capitalizing of letters. All of these are the hallmarks of someone who does have English as their first language, which makes it hard to fully understand what you're saying.

A heart can be kept beating without the use of a brain by electric stimulation, allowing it to continue to beat, which is the concept behind the artificial pacemaker. This means, simply, that the heart can be kept 'alive' without the brain. Yes, it is not something that can be passed down generational, but it proves that a heart can be kept alive without a brain. And no, this isn't sci-fi, this is actual science. As I said: it's the purpose of an artificial pacemaker.

Experiments also does dictate truth. If you don't think they do, then I don't think you've been in a science class.

Also, still nothing on where you pulled that 99.9% number for mutations from.

 

[Panthers]

You're being rude, I was trying to understand better since you have no attempt at using punctuation, actual grammar or even capitalizing of letters. All of these are the hallmarks of someone who does have English as their first language, which makes it hard to fully understand what you're saying.

A heart can be kept beating without the use of a brain by electric stimulation, allowing it to continue to beat, which is the concept behind the artificial pacemaker. This means, simply, that the heart can be kept 'alive' without the brain. Yes, it is not something that can be passed down generational, but it proves that a heart can be kept alive without a brain. And no, this isn't sci-fi, this is actual science. As I said: it's the purpose of an artificial pacemaker.

Experiments also does dictate truth. If you don't think they do, then I don't think you've been in a science class.

Also, still nothing on where you pulled that 99.9% number for mutations from.

many organs generate their own bioelectricity,
they recently discovered that the eye generates its own electricity.
keeping in mind everything that the eye sees is compressed into an electrical signal and sent via nerve to the brain
where the electric sign is then decompressed for your soul to see.

this self electrical regulation and data compression is not natural and did not happen by chance, as the information compressed is converted from two states of information and requires 2 deliberate conversions.

we are organic machines, not organic mutants
each organ has been specifically designed and regulated.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

many organs generate their own bioelectricity,
they recently discovered that the eye generates its own electricity.
keeping in mind everything that the eye sees is compressed into an electrical signal and sent via nerve to the brain
where the electric sign is then decompressed for your soul to see.

this self electrical regulation and data compression is not natural and did not happen by chance, as the information compressed is converted from two states of information and requires 2 deliberate conversions.

we are organic machines, not organic mutants
each organ has been specifically designed and regulated.

Biomechanical machines, by way of evolution via mutations.
Just saying we're machines does nothing to show that evolution is wrong.

 

[Panthers]

Experiments also does dictate truth. If you don't think they do, then I don't think you've been in a science class.

Also, still nothing on where you pulled that 99.9% number for mutations from.

failed scifi experiments do not dictate the truth.

removing a tire from a destroyed car, and inflating it is remarkable,
but is only useful if the tire gets reinstalled.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

failed scifi experiments do not dictate the truth.

removing a tire from a destroyed car, and inflating it is remarkable,
but is only useful if the tire gets reinstalled.

Failed science experiments don't, that is true. Successful ones do however.
And it's science. Not science fiction. Just science.

And where did you pull the 99.9% number on mutations from?

 

[Panthers]

Biomechanical machines, by way of evolution via mutations.
Just saying we're machines does nothing to show that evolution is wrong.

broken down organic machines, in need of biomechanical reengineering.

the law of thermodynamics says "all breaks down", hence we must be vigilante.

 

[Panthers]

Failed science experiments don't, that is true. Successful ones do however.
And it's science. Not science fiction. Just science.

And where did you pull the 99.9% number on mutations from?

do you have a more precise number?

everyday, more breakdowns than breakups.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

broken down organic machines, in need of biomechanical reengineering.

the law of thermodynamics says "all breaks down", hence we must be vigilante.

And that does nothing to show that evolution is wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

do you have a more precise number?

everyday, more breakdowns than breakups.

I want to know where you got the number from because it sounds so ludicrously outrage in number that it has to be wrong.

 

[Panthers]

And that does nothing to show that evolution is wrong.

evolution is seen 99.9% as a beneficial thing,
it is not.
we devolve and breakdown.
hence Adam and Eve lived almost 1000 years and were near perfect creations.